Heart failure medications prescribed at discharge for patients with left ventricular assist devices.

BACKGROUND: Real-world use of traditional heart failure (HF) medications for patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) is not well known. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational analysis of 1,887 advanced HF patients with and without LVADs from 32 LVAD hospitals participating in the Get With The Guidelines-Heart Failure registry from January 2009 to March 2015. We examined HF medication prescription at discharge, temporal trends, and predictors of prescription among patients with an in-hospital (n = 258) or prior (n = 171) LVAD implant, and those with advanced HF but no LVAD, as defined by a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤25% and in-hospital receipt of intravenous inotropes or vasopressin receptor antagonists (n = 1,458). RESULTS: For ß-blocker and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEI/ARB), discharge prescriptions were 58.9% and 53.5% for new LVAD patients, 53.8% and 42.9% for prior LVAD patients, and 73.4% and 63.2% for patients without LVAD support, respectively (both P < .0001). Aldosterone antagonist prescription quadrupled among LVAD patients during the study period (P < .0001), whereas ACEI/ARB use decreased nearly 20 percentage points (60.0% to 41.4%, P = .0003). In the multivariable analysis of LVAD patients, patient age was inversely associated with ß-blocker, ACEI/ARB, and aldosterone antagonist prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional HF therapies were moderately prescribed at discharge to patients with LVADs and were more frequently prescribed to patients with advanced HF without LVAD support. Moderate prescription rates suggest clinical uncertainty in the use of antiadrenergic medication in this population. Further research is needed on the optimal medical regimen for patients with LVADs.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Deep Learning and Trained Human Graders for Diabetic Retinopathy Screening in a Nationwide Program.

INTRODUCTION: Deep learning (DL) for screening diabetic retinopathy (DR) has the potential to address limited healthcare resources by enabling expanded access to healthcare. However, there is still limited health economic evaluation, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, on this subject to aid decision-making for DL adoption. METHODS: In the context of a middle-income country (MIC), using Thailand as a model, we constructed a decision tree-Markov hybrid model to estimate lifetime costs and outcomes of Thailand's national DR screening program via DL and trained human graders (HG). We calculated the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) between the two strategies. Sensitivity analyses were performed to probe the influence of modeling parameters. RESULTS: From a societal perspective, screening with DL was associated with a reduction in costs of ~ US$ 2.70, similar quality-adjusted life-years (QALY) of + 0.0043, and an incremental net monetary benefit of ~ US$ 24.10 in the base case. In sensitivity analysis, DL remained cost-effective even with a price increase from US$ 1.00 to US$ 4.00 per patient at a Thai willingness-to-pay threshold of ~ US$ 4.997 per QALY gained. When further incorporating recent findings suggesting improved compliance to treatment referral with DL, our analysis models effectiveness benefits of ~ US$ 20 to US$ 50 depending on compliance. CONCLUSION: DR screening using DL in an MIC using Thailand as a model may result in societal cost-savings and similar health outcomes compared with HG. This study may provide an economic rationale to expand DL-based DR screening in MICs as an alternative solution for limited availability of skilled human resources for primary screening, particularly in MICs with similar prevalence of diabetes and low compliance to referrals for treatment.

Association of coronary CT angiography or stress testing with subsequent utilization and spending among Medicare beneficiaries.

CONTEXT: Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) is a new noninvasive diagnostic test for coronary artery disease (CAD), but its association with subsequent clinical management has not been established. OBJECTIVE: To compare utilization and spending associated with functional (stress testing) and anatomical (CCTA) noninvasive cardiac testing in a Medicare population. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Retrospective, observational cohort study using claims data from a 20% random sample of 2005-2008 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries 66 years or older with no claims for CAD in the preceding year, who received nonemergent, noninvasive testing for CAD (n = 282,830). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cardiac catheterization, coronary revascularization, acute myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality, and total and CAD-related Medicare spending over 180 days of follow-up. RESULTS: Compared with stress myocardial perfusion scintigraphy (MPS), CCTA was associated with an increased likelihood of subsequent cardiac catheterization (22.9% vs 12.1%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.19 [95% CI, 2.08 to 2.32]; P < .001), percutaneous coronary intervention (7.8% vs 3.4%; AOR, 2.49 [2.28 to 2.72]; P < .001), and coronary artery bypass graft surgery (3.7% vs 1.3%; AOR, 3.00 [2.63 to 3.41]; P < .001). CCTA was also associated with higher total health care spending ($4200 [$3193 to $5267]; P < .001), which was almost entirely attributable to payments for any claims for CAD ($4007 [$3256 to $4835]; P < .001). Compared with MPS, there was lower associated spending with stress echocardiography (-$4981 [-$4991 to -$4969]; P < .001) and exercise electrocardiography (-$7449 [-$7452 to -$7444]; P < .001). At 180 days, CCTA was associated with a similar likelihood of all-cause mortality (1.05% vs 1.28%; AOR, 1.11 [0.88 to 1.38]; P = .32) and a slightly lower likelihood of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction (0.19% vs 0.43%; AOR, 0.60 [0.37 to 0.98]; P = .04). CONCLUSION: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent CCTA in a nonacute setting were more likely to undergo subsequent invasive cardiac procedures and have higher CAD-related spending than patients who underwent stress testing.

Outcomes after coronary artery calcium and other cardiovascular biomarker testing among asymptomatic medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Biomarkers improve cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk prediction, but their comparative effectiveness in clinical practice is not known. We sought to compare the use, spending, and clinical outcomes in asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries evaluated for CVD with coronary artery calcium (CAC) or other cardiovascular risk markers. METHODS AND RESULTS: We used a 20% sample of 2005 to 2011 Medicare claims to identify fee-for-service beneficiaries aged ≥65.5 years with no CVD claims in the previous 6 months. We matched patients with CAC with patients who received high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP; n=8358) or lipid screening (n=6250) using propensity-score methods. CAC was associated with increased noninvasive cardiac testing within 180 days (hazard ratio, 2.22, 95% confidence interval, 1.68-2.93, P<0.001, versus hs-CRP; hazard ratio, 4.30, 95% confidence interval, 3.04-6.06, P<0.001, versus lipid screening) and increased coronary angiography and revascularization. During 3-year follow-up, CAC was associated with higher CVD-related spending ($6525 versus $4432 for hs-CRP, P<0.001; and $6500 versus $3073 for lipid screening, P<0.001) and fewer CVD-related events when compared with hs-CRP (hazard ratio, 0.74, 95% confidence interval, 0.58-0.94, P=0.017) but not compared with lipid screening (hazard ratio, 0.84, 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.11, P=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: CAC testing among asymptomatic Medicare beneficiaries was associated with increased use of cardiac tests and procedures, higher spending, and slightly improved clinical outcomes when compared with hs-CRP testing.

Impact of the Screening Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently (SAAAVE) Act on abdominal ultrasonography use among Medicare beneficiaries.

BACKGROUND: Since January 1, 2007, Medicare has covered abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) screening for new male enrollees with a history of smoking under the Screening Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms Very Efficiently (SAAAVE) Act. We examined the association between this program and abdominal ultrasonography for AAA screening, elective AAA repair, hospitalization for AAA rupture, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: We used a 20% sample of traditional Medicare enrollees from 2004 to 2008 to identify 65-year-old men eligible for screening and 3 control groups not eligible for screening (70-year-old men, 76-year-old men, and 65-year-old women). We used logistic regression to examine the change in outcomes at 365 days for eligible vs ineligible beneficiaries before and after SAAAVE Act implementation, adjusting for comorbidities, state-level smoking prevalence, geographic variation, and time trends. RESULTS: Fewer than 3% of abdominal ultrasonography claims after 2007 were for SAAAVE-specific AAA screening. There was a significantly greater increase in abdominal ultrasonography use among SAAAVE-eligible beneficiaries (2.0 percentage points among 65-year-old men, from 7.6% in 2004 to 9.6% in 2008; 0.7 points [8.9% to 9.6%] among 70-year-old men; 0.7 points [10.8% to 11.5%] among 76-year-old men; and 0.9 points [7.5% to 8.4%] among 65-year-old women) (P < .001 for all comparisons with 65-year-old men). The SAAAVE Act was associated with increased use of abdominal ultrasonography in 65-year-old men compared with 70-year-old men (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.15; 95% CI, 1.11-1.19) (P < .001), and this increased use remained even when SAAAVE-specific AAA screening was excluded (AOR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.08-1.16) (P < .001). Implementation of the SAAAVE Act was not associated with changes in rates of AAA repair, AAA rupture, or all-cause mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of the SAAAVE Act on AAA screening was modest and was based on abdominal ultrasonography use that it did not directly reimburse. The SAAAVE Act had no discernable effect on AAA rupture or all-cause morality.

The relationship between low back magnetic resonance imaging, surgery, and spending: impact of physician self-referral status.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and receipt of surgery for patients with low back pain. DATA SOURCES: Medicare claims for a 20 percent sample of beneficiaries from 1998 to 2005. STUDY DESIGN: We identify nonradiologist physicians who appear to begin self-referral arrangements for MRI between 1999 and 2005, as well as their patients who have a new episode of low back pain care during this time. We focus on regression models that identify the relationship between receipt of MRI and subsequent use of back surgery and health care spending. Receipt of MRI may be endogenous, so we use physician acquisition of MRI as an instrument for receipt of MRI. The models adjust for demographic and socioeconomic covariates as well as month, year, and physician fixed effects. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: We include traditional, fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries with a visit to an orthopedist or primary care physician for nonspecific low back pain, and no claims for low back pain in the year prior. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: In the first stage, acquisition of MRI equipment is a strongly correlated with patients receiving MRI scans. Among patients of orthopedists, receipt of an MRI scan increases the probability of having surgery by 34 percentage points. Among patients of primary care physicians, receiving a low back MRI is not statistically significantly associated with subsequent surgery receipt. CONCLUSIONS: Orthopedists and primary care physicians who begin billing for the performance of MRI procedures, rather than referring patients outside of their practice for MRI, appear to change their practice patterns such that they use more MRI for their patients with low back pain. These increases in MRI use appear to lead to increases in low back surgery receipt and health care spending among patients of orthopedic surgeons, but not of primary care physicians.